What further proof do climate deniers need?

0 votes
What further proof do climate deniers need?
asked in Education by
recategorized by

16 Answers

0 votes

First a little history on how climate change and the fear of, has preoccupied mankind.

But, first, there are many who are not going to like how this ends up.

So, in America the concerns over climate change goes all the way back to Thomas Jefferson who, in his book, Notes on the State of Virginia , in 1787, had this to say on the topic;

"A change in our climate however is taking place very sensibly. Both heats and colds are become much more moderate within the memory even of the middle-aged. Snows are less frequent and less deep. They do not often lie, below the mountains, more than one, two or three days, and very rarely a week…”

Jefferson continued, “The elderly inform me the earth used to be covered with snow about three months in every year. The rivers, which then seldom failed to freeze over in the course of the winter, scarcely ever do so now. This change has produced an unfortunate fluctuation between heat and cold, in the spring of the year, which is very fatal to fruits. From the year 1741 to 1769, an interval of 28 years, there was no instance of fruit killed by the frost in the neighbourhood of Monticello."

Noah Webster, yes, the same Mr. Webster of Webster's Dictionary fame criticized Jackson in a work titled, A Dissertation on the Supposed Change in the Temperature , published in 1810 .

Briefly, Webster claimed Jefferson had no concrete evidence on climate change;

"Mr. Jefferson seems to have no authority for his opinions but the observations of elderly and middle-aged people," Webster’s, lengthy rebuttal, not only went after Jefferson but, attacked other climate critics of the era such as Samuel Williams, who also advanced the argument that clearing trees “caused the land to become warmer and drier.”

Sound familiar?

Now to the present and I am certain there will be many people who are not going to like what follows.

However, no one will be able to refute the science presented here.

First off, there is no argument the earth is warming, but, according to the chart below, cooling is next. The evidence is clear and based on Ice Core samples/information from the Antarctic dating back Four Hundred Thousand Years.

Note, the temperatures, in the graph below, for the first 200,000 years before humans appeared in this epoch. The following 200,000 years are delineated by the Blue line.

Now, you will NOTE that the lines of the first 200,000 years fit perfectly over one another and nearly follow the exact same pattern and as you will note, yes we are warming , but, according to the chart, a cooling trend is on the horizon.

I can recall in the early to late 1970s scientists were sounding the alarm for a new “Ice Age” and the devastation it would soon bring upon us. Never happened and quite frankly, I believe this to go the same route as the “Ice Age,” warnings of the 70s, much ado about nothing.

image

answered by
0 votes

Climate change is cyclical. They used to teach earth sciences at college and show actual cutaways to expose changes in geology and climate over time. It is similar to looking at tree rings. Drought years, good growth years, etc are obvious for everyone to see.

We are in a warming trend and it's not done yet. The tectonic plates are moving more freely and holding more liquid that obviously gets heated through natural occurrence. Look at science journals from a decade or so ago before it became insanely more profitable to talk climate crisis.

We are gonna be warm for a while. The earth is just shedding fleas, to half-way borrow a George Carlin reference.

answered by
0 votes

What FURTHER proof… how about any proof. Their is currently NO, ZERO, ZIP scientific proof that supports the claim that increase in atmospheric CO2, if any, caused by human activity has any impact of global warming. Since your question States “What further proof" maybe you should have include some proof as part of your question. But then you couldn't do that could you. Because there isn't any. A theory is not proof, articles written about claimed increases in the number or intensity of storms isn't proof. In fact a warming climate should produce fewer and less severe storms, because storms are created as a result of warm air meeting cooler air. The greater the difference between the 2 the greater the storm potential is. So an entire planet warming should have the opposite effect.

IPCC has been using climate models for over 4 decades in trying to predict the warming their theory claims should occur as a result of human activity adding 5% of the annual global contribution to the atmospheric trace gas CO2 which makes up .04% of the atmosphere (which means for every 10,000 molecules of atmosphere 4 molecular CO2.) But there models have failed at every turn to correctly predict global temperatures. So you ask What more proof is needed, well again how about any proof.

answered by
0 votes

Some people are contrary by nature. If the science said that human-caused climate change is not happening, they’d take the opposite position. But for many millions of persons, it isn’t a contrary nature, but a warranted belief in the benevolence of creation. The missing piece for them, and consequently for the whole world, is a simple understanding of how good people damage the planet despite the benevolence of nature and all our best intentions.

The simple explanation is the low-price imperative in our marketplace. Consumers shop for low price and producers compete to offer lowest price. Consequently we all duck the costs of good stewardship in pursuit of low prices. And here we are.

It’s human nature, and indeed is the nature of life. Every creature seeks more for less, and the creatures that achieve it get a survival advantage. It isn’t a result of capitalism, which is a marketplace system based on private ownership. Other systems have been tried and they all fall prey to the low-price imperative. Sometimes benevolent dictatorships arise and flourish briefly, but the more success they have, the greater the profit for malevolent forces that succeed in corrupting them, so they eventually fall.

Nature has evolved a way to achieve sustainable prosperity despite the low-price imperative, through local intra-dependence: Everything living in a stable environment depends on its neighbors. It’s the truth, and it gives rise to beauty — flowers and bees and birds, etc. The rest of the living creatures, the ones that don’t participate in this truth, and beauty, and goodness, are invasive. Often, invasive species destroy local ecosystems. Sometimes ultimate invaders take down entire regional systems. And occasionally they destroy global stability and even planets.

Global extinction events due to invasive species have become rare because of the evolution of life and complex local systems that can survive the loss of some species. But humans have managed the trick. We’re just that clever. Really. And yet, a few of us are even more clever than just, and have figured out that local intra-dependence everywhere is the key to survival of global civilization. Elinor Ostrom won a Nobel Prize for the proof. And now we have Reconomy , available in the public domain, as a way for any community to fund the empowerment of local intra-dependence without disrupting the low-price imperative that organizes life most efficiently.

image

No villains, no pitchforks. Just a self-funding, self-managing, self-scaling, fundamental economic upgrade to the marketplace, to reward good stewardship sufficiently to counterbalance the low-price imperative.

That’s it. The alternative is extinction, and if humans are clever enough as a species they’ll make the right choice. If not…well, its a big universe.

answered by
0 votes

“Climate denier” is intended to be an insult directed at people with widely different views.

The practical political debate today is between (and I’m trying for neutral terms here) climate activists—who believe strong government actions to reduce carbon emissions like carbon taxes, cap-and-trade and subsidies for green technologies are wise—and climate skeptics—who believe the benefits of those policies are likely outweighed by their uncertainties and costs.

The difference has less to do with attitudes toward climate science as attitudes toward government activism. Many skeptics believe:

Any top-down climate policy proposal is likely to be stuffed with loopholes and payouts to cronies, with the government unwisely picking winners and losers rather than letting the market decide;

Even the wisest and most honest policies have unpredictable consequences—effective emission reduction legislation sends the economy and technology down an entirely new path, with no one able to forecast the effect on total human environmental footprint;

Even if we knew the total human environmental footprint precisely, we don’t knew the effect on climate. Our best estimate concerns only one tiny part—the effect of CO2 emissions on mean global temperature—and even that we don’t know within a factor of 2;

Even if we knew the effect on long-term global mean climate precisely, we wouldn’t know the effect on actual local weather conditions—and it’s local weather that matters to individuals, not global long-term means;

Even if we know the exact weather everywhere for the entire future, we wouldn’t know the overall effect on human happiness.

So skeptics generally support experimentation and gentle nudging, with lots of freedom for bottom-up innovation by people betting their own money; rather than dramatic top-down strategies that presuppose far more certainty than is humanly possible.

Most sensible activists do not directly refute points 1 to 5 above, but they believe in activism even under uncertainty. We should take the actions that seem most likely to help how. If they help, expand them. If they hurt, fix or replace them. All we can do is our best. Yes, the results of our best are uncertain, but that’s no reason not to try.

These are deep attitudes that are not likely to be changed by any proof available in the next few years. The kind of proof that would help change the minds of skeptics is success of big government top-down programs and demonstrations of government honesty and competence.

answered by
0 votes

Climate deniers is a very unfortunate term. It is a derogatory term, used to equate people who don't accept global warming theories with Holocaust denial. You can think that climate sceptics are bad people but it is unfair, dishonest, irresponsible and distasteful to compare the industrial slaughter of human beings to global warming.

It's also a few reasons to deny the Holocaust, but the main one is that the denier is a convinced Nazi or Fascist. To make that comparison is also unfair, dishonest, irresponsible and distasteful. In short you are a bad human being if you use the term ‘climate denier’ because you belittle a horrible crime against humanity, and call people Fascists. Shame on you.

Climate sceptics are not the problem. They do their part in the scientific model. You are supposed to be critical, and if a theory is valid. Then it doesn't need anyone to defend it.

The problem is with the Religion of Science. People who believe in anything a scientist says, as if he was a Prophet speaking the word of God Himself. That motivates non-scientists to adopt scientific methods and pose as scientists to get funding, and to be taken seriously. This is definitely not a new phenomenon, it has been going on since the 19th century. Whole academic circles have grown up posing as scientists, and misleading people.

This problem only got worse as political thinkers began to say that their works were scientific. A notable example is Marx, who poses as an economist, and historian. His economics were taken wholesale from Ricardo, and there was no scientific evidence for any of his historical theories. Still many modern historians are still Marxist in their outlook. This politicizing of science further undermined science in the Age of Propaganda starting before WWI. Science was abused to convince people to keep fighting. The enemy was portrayed as non-human. Science, news, poetry and art became very untrustworthy since they became propaganda. First in the service of the empires, then to nationalism and ideologies.

After the wars, the cold War didn't make the problem go away. War on drugs, war on poverty, war on pollution, war on racism, war on terrorism, war on disease, war on pests, war on discrimination, war on masculinity, war on smoking, war on drinking, war on global warming… when the solution to a particular war is Socialism. It tends to make non-Socialists sceptical. When we are told to accept anything as truth, and to not ask questions or be sceptical. Then we should all be sceptical.

When we look at the history of environmentalism. Many of their causes have later been shown to be counterproductive, or conclusions based on limited of flawed evidence. Another problem is that a political system is not equipped to make distinction between good or bad science. Popular opinion is not any indication of validity either, so even popular theories are likely to be wrong. Racism was universally accepted as fact in the late 19th century. Now it isn't possible to examine the topic without being called an apologist for Nazism.

So if the government, or international community of states are to do anything, they are likely to do the wrong thing. They cannot back whatever measures which is threatening to the status quo of the international power balance. So they won't back nuclear power, because they can be used to enrich material for nuclear weapons. Environmentalists do not push the agenda either, which leads me to suspect they don't really believe their own theories either.

Environmentalism is also anti-Capitalism, but usually what is good for free markets, is what is best in terms of pollution, and for the global environment. People who really care about the environment wants people to be self sustained, short travel of goods and are anti-competition. They usually only care about their immediate surroundings.

If I ask someone to explain to me why I should believe in their theories. I'm just told nonsense that isn't scientific at all. I assume because most people who are convinced don't understand it. But I want to understand before I believe in a theory. And if I don't, and the theory is right. Then there should be no threat to the science. Since science is not based on faith, but on being critical.

What do I need to believe? More science, less politics, less people blindly accepting anything they are told, and more actual real world solutions.

answered by
DesignsShirt
Design your Own Team Apparel